CX893 sighting of DPRK missile
Dec 4, 2017, 12:25 am
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: May 2016
Location: York
Programs: CX JL QR LH BA
Posts: 326
CX893 sighting of DPRK missile
http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/e...suspected-crew
"Cathay Pacific not changing routes despite crew’s suspected sighting of North Korean missile test."
"Cathay Pacific not changing routes despite crew’s suspected sighting of North Korean missile test."
Dec 4, 2017, 3:51 am
#4
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: HKG/HND/OOL
Programs: QF Emerald. SQ Gold.
Posts: 3,179
the article is absolute horse &*%$ that is beyond fake news or realms of fiction. re-entry speed ot icbm is at 7km/s... that is 1.5 second from typical cruise altitude of aircraft to an impact.
or put i this way. at cruising altituee you can see about 240miles away max in best visibility. assuming you first see a missle on reentry stage (which in itself is bull*&%$#>) at this terminal visibility, it takes 55 seconds to travel that distace.
for an aircraft pilot to "detect, identify ICBM flighpath, and modify course to avoid impact to reentry vehicle that is travlling at at 25,000km/h (30x faster than airplane)" is just a plain psychopath idea
or put i this way. at cruising altituee you can see about 240miles away max in best visibility. assuming you first see a missle on reentry stage (which in itself is bull*&%$#>) at this terminal visibility, it takes 55 seconds to travel that distace.
for an aircraft pilot to "detect, identify ICBM flighpath, and modify course to avoid impact to reentry vehicle that is travlling at at 25,000km/h (30x faster than airplane)" is just a plain psychopath idea
Dec 4, 2017, 4:50 am
#5
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 255
the article is absolute horse &*%$ that is beyond fake news or realms of fiction. re-entry speed ot icbm is at 7km/s... that is 1.5 second from typical cruise altitude of aircraft to an impact.
or put i this way. at cruising altituee you can see about 240miles away max in best visibility. assuming you first see a missle on reentry stage (which in itself is bull*&%$#>) at this terminal visibility, it takes 55 seconds to travel that distace.
for an aircraft pilot to "detect, identify ICBM flighpath, and modify course to avoid impact to reentry vehicle that is travlling at at 25,000km/h (30x faster than airplane)" is just a plain psychopath idea
or put i this way. at cruising altituee you can see about 240miles away max in best visibility. assuming you first see a missle on reentry stage (which in itself is bull*&%$#>) at this terminal visibility, it takes 55 seconds to travel that distace.
for an aircraft pilot to "detect, identify ICBM flighpath, and modify course to avoid impact to reentry vehicle that is travlling at at 25,000km/h (30x faster than airplane)" is just a plain psychopath idea
Dec 4, 2017, 4:51 am
#6
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 5,797
the article is absolute horse &*%$ that is beyond fake news or realms of fiction. re-entry speed ot icbm is at 7km/s... that is 1.5 second from typical cruise altitude of aircraft to an impact.
or put i this way. at cruising altituee you can see about 240miles away max in best visibility. assuming you first see a missle on reentry stage (which in itself is bull*&%$#>) at this terminal visibility, it takes 55 seconds to travel that distace.
for an aircraft pilot to "detect, identify ICBM flighpath, and modify course to avoid impact to reentry vehicle that is travlling at at 25,000km/h (30x faster than airplane)" is just a plain psychopath idea
or put i this way. at cruising altituee you can see about 240miles away max in best visibility. assuming you first see a missle on reentry stage (which in itself is bull*&%$#>) at this terminal visibility, it takes 55 seconds to travel that distace.
for an aircraft pilot to "detect, identify ICBM flighpath, and modify course to avoid impact to reentry vehicle that is travlling at at 25,000km/h (30x faster than airplane)" is just a plain psychopath idea
Dec 4, 2017, 5:24 am
#7
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: HKG/HND/OOL
Programs: QF Emerald. SQ Gold.
Posts: 3,179
whole thing about trying or not trying to change routes based on missile trajectory is simply laugable. no, it doesnt say that explicitly but article is implying cx shud have taken evasive measures for an object flying at 30x its speed... seriously
Dec 4, 2017, 6:40 am
#8
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 5,797
It's simply asking whether CX could route flights around the area in future. There is no suggestion at all that flights could take evasive action.
Dec 4, 2017, 6:53 am
#9
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: NYC
Programs: pleb
Posts: 563
What article are you reading?? It just says the airline as a whole was not going to change their future ops and routes, nothing about evasive maneuvers. They even reference the 2015 incidents over Russia where several airlines determined their own risk tolerance and adjusted their routes as needed. Jeez get some coffee.
Dec 4, 2017, 1:08 pm
#10
Join Date: Mar 2012
Programs: Mileage Plus 1K; Marriott Platinum; Hilton Gold
Posts: 6,355
What article are you reading?? It just says the airline as a whole was not going to change their future ops and routes, nothing about evasive maneuvers. They even reference the 2015 incidents over Russia where several airlines determined their own risk tolerance and adjusted their routes as needed. Jeez get some coffee.
Dec 4, 2017, 1:36 pm
#11
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: New York
Programs: AA, CX, Hyatt, Marriott
Posts: 1,484
Not surprisingly, this news is picked up by major media in the States, such as CNN, ABC, Washington Post etc
http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/04/asia/n...ile/index.html
http://abcnews.go.com/International/...-test-51557903
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...rt-near-japan/
http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/04/asia/n...ile/index.html
http://abcnews.go.com/International/...-test-51557903
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...rt-near-japan/
Dec 4, 2017, 9:48 pm
#13
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Seat 1A
Programs: Non-status paid F/J (best value for $$$)
Posts: 4,126
Maybe they don't see it as a "real" Chinese airplane but as an airplane where approximately 50% of the passengers are US citizens and is operated by a company started by imperialists (Swire group).
Dec 4, 2017, 10:05 pm
#14
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 565
There is no evidence the North Koreans want to shoot down a civilian airliner. It is not part of their historical modus operandi, unlike the CCP whose armed forces have opened fire on a Cathay plane in the past.
Dec 5, 2017, 2:12 am
#15
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: HKG
Posts: 1,509
I thought ATC should be in the best position to see a missile and warn nearby airplanes to take note. You can't cordon off the entire north Pacific fearing a wayward missile will drop on an airplane. I don't think any airline will make that call. It's not the eastern Ukraine or Syria where the use of these weapons are confined.